Recognition of Value: A Critical Step in the Value

Creation Process
Russell Boisjoly  (  gb94@roadrunner.com )
Professor Emeritus of Finance and Strategy State University of New York at Fredonia Thompson Hall
E338 Fredonia, NY 14063

Research

Keywords: Internal entrepreneurial processes, external entrepreneurial processes, dormant technologies,

recognition of value, value creation, value capture

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-573707/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  
Read Full License

Page 1/21
Abstract
This paper has demonstrated that the intentional Value Creation process presented by Lepak, Taylor &
Smith (2007) can be enhanced by adding connections between the Value Creation Process of Lepak,
Taylor & Smith (2007) and the Creativity Process of Amabile et al (1996) within a corporation, and that
those two internal processes also have a relationship with the external entrepreneurial processes modeled
by Krueger-Brazeal (1994) and Bhave (1994). Furthermore, all of these constructs can be related to the
massive amount of dormant technology available in corporations, R&D labs, government research
centers, universities, and foundations/nonpro t research centers. The relationship between each model
assist in capturing the essence of Shane and Venkataraman (2000) whose article laid out a design for
Entrepreneurship as a unique eld of research. When the aforementioned models are included in one
holistic model, the internal and external entrepreneurial processes are shown to have the same or nearly
identical features. 

Introduction
The value creation process has been examined by numerous authors from Schumpeter (1934), his theory
of “creative destruction” was prescient that we create new ventures to replace (or replace and destroy)
older ones. Kirzner (1973) created a place for entrepreneurship within microeconomic theory; Drucker
(1985) connects innovation to entrepreneurship, and then Shane and Venkataraman (2000) establishes
the recipe for entrepreneurship to be a fruitful research eld. These were the impactful research articles in
a wave that included Amit, Gloston & Mueller (1993), Amit, Mueller, and Cockburn (1995), Baumol (1989),
Casson (1982), Cohen and Levin (1989), Hayek (1945), Kirzner (1997), Low and MacMillan (1988), These
are just the highlights of the past 90 years of research. The purpose of this research is to establish the
linkages between several points of view on creativity, entrepreneurship, value creation and opportunity
recognition. Recently, Davidson (2015) urged a rede nition of some concepts and created an environment
of External Enablers impacting Actors and New Venture Ideas. While theses a very helpful constructs, they
only really apply to a segment of the market for opportunities. The concepts presented do not represent
the process for the “accidental discovery” which is not a “New Venture Idea” being pursued by an “Actor”
which bene ts from an “External Enabler.” An “Accidental Discovery” is more like a “blind date.” Post-It
Notes is a great example of this, or Slinky. In both cases, there was no intent to nd or create a new idea,
yet it happened in both cases. The Slinky has had a long career in the market. It is a very successful toy.
Or perhaps we can extend this same notion to serendipitous meetings, when researchers a trying to solve
one problem and end discovering the solution to a totally different problem: viagra or Lexan. Viagra was
being designed as a blood pressure drug. It certainly gave blood pressure to men in a special place, but
not for the purpose originally intended. Lexan was a discovery that was many times harder than intended.
It was used for football helmets because you could hit it with a hammer and not dent or crack it. These
discoveries do not t the linear process outlines by Davidson. The Davidson (2015) process de nitions
also do not t for the ultimate use of “dormant technologies” or new uses for “old technologies/services.”
These two case histories would apply to the fax machine which was developed for the Navy in

Page 2/21
preparation for World War II, but was not commercially produced for business applications until the early
1970s. Another similar example would be the overnight delivery service developed by Federal Express.
The use of airplanes for delivering mail was available for a few decades until FedEx said, “When it
absolutely, positively has to be there!” Everyone had the tools (planes, trucks, and warehouses), but they
needed to engage a heuristic to schedule the planes and the distribution in coordination with ground
transport. The USPS and UPS essentially had the heuristic for airmail and delivering packages in 2 days.
So, again this does not represent the largely linear process imagined by Davidson (2015).

In order to be as inclusive as possible of entrepreneurial opportunities and the environments in which they
are created below is a list, which may not be comprehensive, but is more inclusive than most research
efforts on entrepreneurship. This research is intended to provide a framework for entrepreneurship which
is as inclusive of entrepreneurial modalities as possible. Therefore, here are types of entrepreneurial
opportunities and the environments in which they are created:

1. A rm encourages new ideas and identi cation of new opportunities (Amabile et al 1996, Begley and
Boyd 1987, Casson, 1982);
2. A rm that has “next square” or “adjacent square” opportunities; e.g., same technology or modi ed
technology, adjacent marketplace (Baumol 1989, Romanowski, 2006)

3. Dormant technologies (Barr et al 2007, Bagley and Tvarno 2015, Tukel et al 2011, Kneller 2013)

a. taken out by a competitor’s acquisition;

b. technology lacking a breakthrough;
c. technology too expensive or too exhausting to develop;
d. technology that does not have a viable marketplace;
e. technology that would cannibalize the market of an existing product;
f. technology from another marketplace that is adapted to solve a market need in another market; RFID
for inventory, and RFID for medical devices
g. technology from a non-commercial marketplace that is adapted to solve a commercial market need
in another market; EZ Pass, fax
h. technology that gets leapfrogged
i. technology that gets beaten to market
j. technology that the developers cannot agree how to achieve a breakthrough so they abandon it.

3. An inventor who devises a new technology for which there is an identi ed market (Bhave 1994,
Schwartz and Teach 2000);
4. An inventor who devises a new technology for which there is no identi ed Market (Barr et al 2007,
Von Hippel, 1986);

Page 3/21
 . Investor(s) who support inventors #4 and #5 above (Drucker 1985, Reynolds and White 1997,
Roberts 1991);

7. Inventor(s) who spin off a new venture from an existing rm (Amabile et al 1996);

. New technologies developed by an R&D department of a corporation (Hills et al 2004, Holcombe,

2003);

9. New technologies developed in response to requests from external organizations or individuals

(Gartner 1985, Gartner, 1985, 1988, Hayek 1945);

10. Accidental discoveries-trying to solve one problem (market need) and accidently discover the
solution to another problem or market need; e.g., slinky, viagra, lexan (Carey 2005, Horn 2007,
Roberts, 1989)

11. Creation of market disruptors: cell phones vs. beepers; Fed Ex vs UPS; electric cars vs. gasoline
driven cars; hyper loops…. (Schumpeter 1934, Kirzner 1973, West 2005, Utterback 1994)

12. Why, when and how opportunities for the creation of goods and services come into Existence
(Schumpeter 1934, Kirzner 1973, Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, Shane 2000, Schmookler, 1966);

13. Why when and how some people and not others discover and exploit these Opportunities (Kirzner
1973, Shane 2000, Palich and Bagby, 1995, Rehmke, 1988, Evans and Leighton, 1989, Lindsay,
2005);

14. Why when and how different modes of action are used to exploit entrepreneurial Opportunities
(Davidson 2015, Cohen and Levin, 1989, Dunne et all, 1988)

Drucker (1985) describes three additional categories of opportunities: 15) creation of new information
which occurs when new technologies are invented (Felin and Hesterly, 2007), 16) exploitation of market
ine ciencies that result in information asymmetry as across time and/or geography Kaish and Gilad,
1991). 17) the reaction to shifts in relative costs and bene ts for resources, i.e. political, regulatory,
demographic ( Lee and Barney, 2007, Lindman, 2007, McGrath, 1999).

The recognition of value, value creation, and value capture processes can be modeled by combining the
models of Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron (1996), Lepak, Smith and Taylor (2007), Bhave (
1994), Kruger and Brazeal (1994) and model the origin of the opportunity (internal or external), some
sources of the opportunities, and provide a construct for looking at dormant technologies and how they
can be energized and reenter the whole schematic. Dormant technologies represent 75% to 95% of
existing patents, as well as ideas, concepts, opportunities for which no current patent exists. In the
schematic for the integrated model, a dormant technology can be inserted almost anywhere and proceed
through the process until value capture is achieved. Dormant technologies may have more potential
Page 4/21
value, a quicker value creation process, and a signi cant value capture result, especially if it was taken
off the market because a competitor wanted to eliminate competition from a potentially superior
technology, and buys the company or the technology from the competitor. It may be that the existing
technology can still be leapfrogged. Sometimes a superior technology doesn’t survive a regulatory battle.
For example, in the 70s and early 80s there was a battle over video tape standard technology with VHS
and Betamax were the contenders. Betamax was considered by most experts to be the superior
technology, yet it lost the market regulatory battle to VHS likely due to its higher cost, as well as the
market penetration that VHS had achieved up until the time the regulatory standard was set by the
industry. Technologies can be transformed in some cases for another purpose. The video tape wars
ended in the defeat of the Betamax technology. Since that time several technologies have upgraded what
is now the video disc sector of the industry.

Lepak, Smith and Taylor (2007) was both timely and crucial as rms struggle with improving their
execution of strategy in faster and more e cient ways so that the value that is created is realized by their
stakeholders in the products, services, processes, and nancial market performance delivered by the rm.
They provided an excellent overview for an intentional process of capturing value from providing new
products, new services or new processes to a stakeholder group and recognizing how the value can be
transferred or improved upon as an innovation moves through the steps in the process. They recognized
that value creation has been addressed in the strategic management (Porter, 1985; Sirmon, Hitt, and
Ireland, 2007) and human resource management (Simon and March, 1958) literatures, and from the
perspectives of customers (Priem, 2007; Kang, Morris & Snell, 2007) and other stakeholders (Post,
Preston & Sachs, 2002). The model that they presented starts with the Source of Value Creation (from an
academic discipline perspective), then moves to the intended Target or User of the Value, the Value
Creation process itself, and then to Value Capture. In the Lepak, Smith and Taylor model, the Source of
Value is the prospect, or the starting point, of the value creation process itself. The innovation may start
with an idea from an individual, or an identi ed customer need, or it may have been part of organizational
initiatives. The innovation process may have sociological underpinnings, or economic, psychological, and
strategic sources. The User or Bene ciary of the Value may be individuals, customers, government, or
society. The Creation Process may have numerous dimensions and may be a product, service, or process.
Value Capture also may take many forms (technology, products, or services sold and/or licensed, or occur
in numerous markets ( nancial, wholesale, retail, human resource, natural resource, etc.), or alter value
creation processes themselves, etc. However, there is an additional step in the process that involves
“Recognition of Value.” (See Figure 1 Below). Before determining how to “capture value,” there must be
recognition of the value and market potential of a product or service. 

This recognition of value or opportunity recognition needs to occur before performing the analysis to
determine what that market value may be and how to capture that value. Opportunity Recognition has
been cited as a key step in entrepreneurship process (Bhave, 1994; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Hills, 1995;
Hills, Hansen & Hultman, 2004; Hills, Hultman & Miles, 2008; Hills, Singh, Lumpkin, Baltrusaityte, 2004;
Singh, Knox & Crump, 2008). Opportunity recognition is just as important internally in a corporation as it
is externally for the self-employed entrepreneur. In the corporation, sometimes technology gets developed
Page 5/21
and the market opportunity is not recognized, and the technology is abandoned or put on hold
(Yoneyama, Oh, and Kim, 2004; Niehoff and Bloodgood, 2001; Pearson, 1960) (e.g., the fax machine was
developed by the Navy for World War II). Sometimes when a technology or product is being developed an
application is discovered that may be more valuable than the original project and the rm redirects its
resources to that new innovation (e.g., Pyrex cooking bowls, dishes and plates were a valuable alternative
for Corning and not the original purpose for the project) (Romanowski, 1999). In some cases, an
application alternative is not recognized, and the technology or product lies dormant for many years.
Many dormant technologies get sold, transferred or donated to other organizations (Yoneyama, Oh, and
Kim, 2004; Niehoff and Bloodgood (2001); Reamer, Icerman and Youtie, 2003; Ron Sampson, 2004; Arion
and Wagner, 2008) who go through the “recognition of value” phase as well. Also, a technology or
product can be developed accidentally during the development of another product or technology (Roberts,
1989; Carey, 2005). Examples of accidental discoveries are numerous, e.g., Silly Putty (GE), Viagra
(P zer), Lexan (GE), or Post-It Notes (3M). Finally, sometimes the entire organization does not recognize
the value or the opportunity even in an intentional creativity/innovation process such as occurred at
Xerox PARC. This is essentially what happened with Xerox who had developed the personal computer, GUI
computer interfaces, LAN technology and WAN technology (Uttal, 1983). Xerox did not recognize the
market potential of the technologies that they had developed, and they essentially undervalued the GUI
interface technology adapted by Steve Jobs and Gary Wozniak in developing the Apple personal
computer. It had value, but if the value was recognized by Xerox, there was not su cient interest to either
recognize the full value of the technologies through a licensing or sale of the technology, or through
capturing their value internally by manufacturing the components or the software. Another example is the
relatively low price that Bill Gates paid for QDOS (reportedly $50,000) to provide the MS-DOS operating
system for the IBM personal computer (Young, 1997).

The modi ed model includes Recognition of Value (Figure 1) that comes as a natural bridge in the
intentional value creation process when the rm recognizes the market value potential of a product or
service that they have been developing and decide to push forward with the product or service
introduction. The rm must recognize or determine the value before proceeding with Value Capture or
taking some other path. The rm could sell or license the technology or product to another rm, or enter
into a joint venture to design, manufacture and distribute the product. Each of these tactics could be part
of the Value Capture step in this process. But the company can suspend the process because the
business case doesn’t close if the cost of manufacture is too high, the product or service really doesn’t t
the strategy or the rm’s core competencies, or a competitor has come up with a better alternative in the
interim. There also is the possibility that the rm does not recognize, or undervalues, the market value
potential of the product or service. In this case, the rm could try to capture some value by selling or
licensing the technology. However, not all innovations move smoothly through the process. Some
innovations get abandoned at the value capture point or earlier. Also, sometimes ancillary applications
become possible but are not recognized as having value and the technology, product or service lies
dormant or su ciently underutilized to represent uncaptured value. Additionally, sometimes the market
conditions change from the time the original concept is brought forward to the time the value capture

Page 6/21
decision is imminent. In this case the project may have value, but the timing is not right to develop it.
Also, sometimes technologies, products or services are developed for one purpose and they get used for
that purpose (e.g., viagra), but the largest value opportunity goes unrecognized or it takes several years to
convert the technology to a viable commercial application. For example, defense technologies have long
been converted to non-military applications and this too may be part of an intentional process. Defense
and aerospace contractors often look for commercial applications for the technologies that they develop,
and we get products like Tang or technology services like EZ Pass. Sometimes the market potential lies
dormant for many years. Sometimes the technology is available, but no one recognizes an obvious
application. And so, Fred Smith develops a concept to deliver packages overnight in the face a
competition from the US Post O ce and UPS who had huge market shares and the technology to provide
the service, but they didn’t have the logistics model to provide the service. So “when it absolutely,
positively has to be there” you can use Federal Express.

If the opportunity is recognized, what happens next? We can appeal to the research by Amabile, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby & Herron (1996) on the creativity environment within the organization. As depicted in
Figure 4, they have provided empirical evidence that there are three dimensions that fosters creativity in
the work environment (Encouragement of Creativity, Autonomy or Freedom, and Resources) and there are
two dimensions that may have non-positive impact on Creativity in the work environment (Pressures, and
Organizational Impediments to Creativity). Their results provided seven (7) factor loadings and each
factor was signi cant in explaining the level of Creativity in the organization.

The Encouragement of Creativity has two factors: Organizational Encouragement and Supervisory
Encouragement. The organization can encourage creativity by giving any number of rewards from
bonuses, salary increases, promotions, compensation time, lab space, budget resources, equipment, etc.
to employees who have ideas, introduce new products as part of their work assignments, complete
projects after hours, etc. A supervisor may give additional encouragement by giving additional
departmental resources in all of the aforementioned categories and by recommending creative
employees for promotions and new assignments. If an individual inside a large organization has an idea
for a new product or recognized an opportunity, they could go through the stages of the Amabile et al
model. Is the opportunity an offshoot of something in progress; a new idea based on the individual’s
knowledge and exposure to new technologies; an opportunity to improve a process, service, or product
discovered during a Six Sigma project; an accidental discovery; or does it have some other origin? The
individual could consider whether their supervisor would support them in developing the new product
(supervisor encouragement), whether their team colleagues or peers would approve of their involvement,
and what types of rewards that they may garner for successfully completing their project (organizational
encouragement). In addition, they could consider whether they would have freedom to conduct their
technology development or whether their project would be placed under someone else’s authority. So the
Autonomy or Freedom factor is very important. Finally, would the resources ( nancial and time) be
appropriated to the recognized opportunity?

Page 7/21
In addition to this internal assessment, the employee may consider developing the opportunity outside
the rm. The individual may develop the opportunity on his/her own, start their own business, form an
alliance with friends or co-workers, or take the idea to an entrepreneur. Therefore, the individual is
considering becoming an entrepreneur. Kreuger and Brazeal (1994) developed a model of entrepreneurial
potential as shown in Figure 3. A potential entrepreneur can assess an opportunity and consider whether
the opportunity has Perceived Desirability (based on social norms would the opportunity be perceived
positively) and Perceived Feasibility (based on skills and competencies possessed would this be possible
to do). How much Credibility would the opportunity have in the marketplace and how much credibility do I
have as an entrepreneur pursuing this opportunity? What is the market Potential of this opportunity and
my potential to carry it through to completion? Then what are my Intentions to become an entrepreneur?
Once an entrepreneur decides to move forward, the Opportunity Recognition would lead to the
development of a Business Plan, determination of a Production process, and then result in the providing a
Product or Service to the marketplace. When we look at Bhave’s model (1994) (Figure 2 below),
opportunity recognition precedes development of the Business Concept or Business Plan for the
entrepreneur which is followed by the setting up of the Production Technology or Process and then
completion of the Product or Service for sale to the customer. The Product or Service delivered to the
marketplace then enables the Value Creation Process. We can connect Figure 2 to Figure 1. Therefore, the
Krueger-Brazeal process conceptually precedes the Bhave process (1994), and each can relate or connect
to the Lezak, Smith, and Taylor (2007) process.

Also, in connecting to Krueger-Brazeal’s model, internal employees would consider the Perception of the
Desirability, Feasibility, and Credibility of the product. For example, products may have more prestige than
services in the work environment according to the organization’s norms. As a result, products may have a
higher level of feasibility in an organization than services. Products that serve certain industries also may
get more workgroup support and ancillary resources, as well as prestige. Therefore, the Credibility of the
project may in uence the internal entrepreneur in deciding to accept responsibility for the product
development. All of these factors can be in uenced signi cantly by Organizational Encouragement. For
example, rewards may be higher for services because they have higher margins. Stated goals for
organizational creativity by classi cation, industry, products, processes, and services, etc. can assist in
expanding organizational encouragements. The amount of budgetary support (Resources) and the
milestones for project completion may in uence an internal entrepreneur. The greater the budget freedom
and project control, the more likely an internal entrepreneur will pursue their creative ideas. Otherwise they
may enter their idea into the suggestion box and not want to be involved, or worse yet, they may not share
their ideas.

The aforementioned series of questions naturally places the individual or group that recognizes the value
at the intersection of the Amabile (1996), Krueger-Brazeal (1994) and Bhave (1994) models. If we
characterize the Lezak, Taylor, Smith model as an intentional value creation process, their model has a
natural linkage with the Amabile et al model (1996) that depicts the creativity environment in
organizations with the intent to encourage creativity and create more value. These same models can be
used to model the unintentional entrepreneurial process and the decision process confronted by any
Page 8/21
individual who recognizes an opportunity within an organization. Since an individual or group recognizes
an opportunity and its potential value may choose to take the initiative outside the organization, there is a
connection of the intentional internal process to the external entrepreneurial process so well examined by
Krueger-Brazeal (1994) and Bhave (1994).

The individual or group may choose to totally evaluate the Opportunity Recognition using both the
Amabile et al (1996) and Krueger-Brazaeal (1994) models before deciding how to proceed. Additionally, if
the individual is part of an internal group which is making the evaluation, then that individual may be
impacted by their social location (Ashforth & Mael, 2004) in the process. That is, was the individual
responsible for the Recognition of Value? Was the Recognition of Value identi ed by one individual and
then re ned by into a “viable opportunity” after discussion, brainstorming, and re nement by the group?
Does the group have the nancing collectively or from a member to start the “Value capture” process as
entrepreneurs and then proceed according to the Bhave (1994) model? Does the individual possess
unique skills necessary to the success of the venture as an external process?

After performing the assessments modeled by Amabile et al (1996) and Krueger-Brazeal (1994), the
individual can make one of ve decisions: 1) decide to bring the Opportunity Recognition forward
internally with the intent to be the leader or champion; 2) decide to bring the Opportunity Recognition
forward internally to the appropriate person, department or entity (e.g., supervisor, department, or R&D
organization); 3) decide to take the opportunity outside the organization as i) an individual proprietary
project, ii) as part of a proprietary group, iii) as a new organization (individual or group), iv) a venture with
an entrepreneur; 4) decide to postpone bringing the Opportunity Recognition forward either internally or
externally because the timing is not right; 5) decide not to bring the Opportunity Recognition forward
either internally or externally at the present time because of results in the assessments. Decision #5
implies that the individual or group performs an assessment using both models and nds insu cient
evidence to proceed with the Opportunity either internally or externally. Decision #4 implies that one or
both models encourage moving forward on the opportunity, but that there are one or more conditions that
are not conducive to success at the time considered and that the condition (s) may change in the future.
For example, perhaps the departmental budget is anticipated to increase next year which will provide the
resources to pursue the opportunity or perhaps the economy is in recession and the opportunity would
not be well received or likely to succeed until the economy is stronger.

Decision #3 implies that the individual or group is not obligated to receive permission to take the
Opportunity Recognition outside the organization or to turn any ideas over to the rm. Also, the evaluation
using the two models places higher value on external development than internal. This may be from a
personal perspective (or for the group) or it could result from an assessment that the rm would not
proceed with the development of the concept. Therefore, there is greater overall, as well as individual,
value from taking the opportunity outside the organization. In some cases, the individual (or group) has
planned on an entrepreneurial venture, but he/she was waiting for the “right” opportunity (Krueger-
Brazeal, 1994). Decision #2 implies that the individual wants to contribute to the organization by sharing
their Opportunity Recognition with the organization for the Value Capture phase. Decision #1 implies that
Page 9/21
the individual wants to bring the idea to fruition as the leader or champion within the organization. Some
rms reward employees by giving them the leadership opportunity for ideas that they provide the
organization (e.g., 3M with Genesis (Horn, 2007)).

The decision to pursue an Opportunity internally may be in uenced by work environment pressures as
depicted in the Amabile et al (1996) factors of Challenging Work and Workload Pressures. To the extent
that the organization encourages creativity that is manifest in Challenging Work assignments, then a
creative employee may feel encouraged to accept additional challenges. Also, the level of Workload
Pressures for error free results, on-time performance and delivery, realistic tollgates in the creative
process, etc. all may in uence the creative employee. If there is little slack in the schedule or tolerance for
missed deadlines, then it may discourage the acceptance of new creative assignments even if those new
assignments are determined by the individual themselves.

Finally, if the organization has less onerous bureaucratic requirements, has shorter time frames for
decision-making and approval of proposals, doesn’t have a history of under funding projects, has a
history of rewarding creativity, etc., then the balance of organizational encouragements versus
organizational impediments may tip in favor of encouragement. The internal entrepreneur will perform a
set of process checks that are similar to the independent entrepreneur. Once the internal entrepreneur has
decided to pursue the creative process, the goal will be to produce a new product, process, or service that
will satisfy the needs of a speci c user group (individual, rm, government), require a process for bringing
the resultant product, process, or service to market, require a determination of the market opportunity
(Opportunity Recognition), the development of a Business Plan, Production Process, then the sale of the
product, process, or service (Bhave, 1994), to market participants (Value Capture Process).

The independent entrepreneur also will check to see what encouragement he/she has to enter the market,
what resources are needed to develop the product or service and whether a creativity process is needed,
what nancial resources are needed, etc. This leads to Opportunity Recognition, the Development of
Business Plan, introduction of a Production/Technology Process to produce the product or service, and
sales of the Product or Service to the Customer (also Value Capture). The research on the independent
entrepreneur has shown that there are two basic tracks of exploration based on the Opportunity
Recognition trigger. (Hills, Hansen and Hultman, 2004) That is, if the entrepreneur generates the creative
concept, then he/she will evaluate the opportunity and then check the extent of the creative process (e.g.,
lab research) needed including expertise required to complete the process, nancial, production,
marketing and other resources needed, support needed from ancillary resources (e.g., business incubator,
SBA, resources on how to start a business, etc.), from there the business plan is prepared and when the
prototype is available, a production plan is executed that will result in the product or service being
available for sale to the ultimate consumer. If the entrepreneur is considering one or more opportunities
created by others, then they will follow the same steps detailed above, but they may place greater
emphasis on securing the appropriate technical expertise to execute the business plan.

Page 10/21
It should also be noted that an individual or group external to the organization may bring an external
Opportunity inside a corporation to proceed with the Creation Process and/or Value Capture. This may be
an external organization that has been in existence for several years that has developed an Opportunity
to the point where it is ready for the Value Capture stage or when it is early in the Value Capture process.
Many entrepreneurs desire this outcome over going further and pursuing an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of
common stock. Alternatively, the entrepreneur may recognize that the costs of developing the technology
may exceed their resources or outstrip their ability and desire to pursue the Opportunity independently.
They bring the concept to a corporation and hope to remain the leader of the project, but they likely will
perform due diligence and use a checklist like that provided by the Amabile et al (1996) model before
nalizing the sale of the Opportunity. Or they want to sell the Opportunity and reap the bene ts of their
invention and let the corporation execute the remainder of the Creation Process and/or Value Capture
Process.

The acquisition of rms and/or intellectual property may sti e competition or be defensive maneuvers to
protect a competitive advantage. These issues are subjects considered by lawmakers, regulators, and
policy makers (Arai, 2000; West, 2005). These strategies may explain the signi cant number of dormant
patents and technologies (Arai, 2000; Weier, 2007). There is now a major international effort to stimulate
the sale or donation of dormant technologies and to create markets for resale or licensing (Arai, 2000;
Reamer et al, 2003; Wilkins, 2002).

Consequently, we can make the connection between the Entrepreneurship Models, the Creativity Models
and the Value Creation Process as shown in Figure 5. The processes are connected, and the linage may
occur, at more than one junction depending on when Opportunity Recognition occurs and the direction of
association is in uenced by whether the entrepreneur is inside (internal entrepreneur) or outside
(independent entrepreneur) the corporation. In the case of an independent entrepreneur the steps in the
process and the connections also are in uenced by whether the opportunity is generated by the individual
himself/herself or is externally provided from another source.

Results And Discussion

This paper has demonstrated that there are connections between the Value Creation Process (Lepak,
Taylor & Smith, 2007) and the Creativity Process (Amabile et al, 1996) within a corporation, and that
those two internal processes also have a relationship with the external entrepreneurial processes modeled
by Krueger-Brazeal (1994) and Bhave (1994). When included in one holistic model (Figure 5), the internal
and external entrepreneurial processes are shown to have the same or nearly identical features and that it
is possible to connect those models to the marketplace for intellectual property and the laws, regulations
and policies that govern market behavior.

Once the integrated model is demonstrated, then there is a place for Dormant Technologies to be entered
into the internal or external processes shown in Figure 5 depending, in part, on the reason the technology
was dormant. Perhaps the technology had a good basic foundation and an intrapreneur or an

Page 11/21
entrepreneur (individual or organization) sees the opportunity to add arti cial intelligence technology to
create an application for an early warning system to avoid car crashes in automobiles. Once entered into
the process as depicted in Figure 5, the steps can be completed until value capture is achieved.

With so much dormant technology represented by dormant patents (75% to 95%), there is a need to
further explore how dormant technologies enter into value creation and value capture processes.

This paper has further demonstrated that the components of intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship are
not separate and representative of differing research schemes, but rather are related to each other and
whilst there are separate literatures surrounding both subject matters they should be connected to each
other and expanded.

Conclusions
As Shown in Figure 5, the recognition of value is a process that encompasses the internal corporate
creative and intrapreneurial process, and the external creative and entrepreneurial process. Given the
ndings of this article, the literatures of the internal and external processes should be merged and
combined. If this gains the recognition that it should, then the literatures getting combined will generate a
richer and deeper research stream. The next steps should include combining the empirical research for
the internal and external components.

There should be a discovery of deeper similarities after conducting more empirical research on the
recognition of value processes.

List Of Abbreviations
R&D Research and Development

VHS Video Home System

EZ Easy

Declarations
Availability of Data and Materials

There are no data or materials included in this research paper.

Competing Interests

There are no competing interests since I am the sole author and there is no external or internal funding for
this paper.

Funding
Page 12/21
There is no funding for this research paper.

Authors’ Contributions

All the work was done by the sole author, Russell Boisjoly.

Acknowledgements

All the work was done by the sole author, Russell Boisjoly.

Author’s Information

RUSSELL P. BOISJOLY

Russell P. Boisjoly is Professor Emeritus of Finance and Strategy and Dean Emeritus at State University of
New York at Fredonia, as well as an international consultant in nance and strategy. He is an associate
with the TRI Corporation of Alexandria, Virginia, specialists in corporate and adult education. Previously,
he served as Dean of the School of Business, and Professor of Finance, at State University of New York at
Fredonia, he served as Dean of the School of Business, and Professor of Finance, at Lynn University and
at Adelphi University. And, he was the Dean, and Professor of Finance, at the School of Business at
Fair eld University. He also has served as Senior Staff Analyst in the Finance Division of OAO
Corporation of Beltsville, Maryland on U.S government contracts. He has been on the faculties of
Stonehill College, Indiana University, University of Maryland, Simmons College, and the University of
Massachusetts-Lowell. His education includes a B.S. in Industrial Management from the University of
Massachusetts at Lowell, an M.B.A. in Finance from Boston University, and D.B.A. in Finance from
Indiana University.

He has written numerous articles on the topics of business ethics, optimal capital structure, mergers and
acquisitions, and bankruptcy prediction which have focused especially on the application of corporate
nance to the regulated trucking and electric utility industries. Dr. Boisjoly has written a monograph on
Selected Accounting and Financial Practices of the Electric Utility Industry and a monograph on
Shareholder Value Creation for the American Institute of Certi ed Public Accountants which is used
across the United States. His article, "Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions,"
which appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics, Summer, 1989, is frequently cited by researchers and
management practitioners and recently was selected for inclusion in the International Library of
Management, Volume 1, edited by Gerald Mars and David Weir and published by Ashgate Publishing, as
one of the 1,000 most important management research articles of the 20th Century.

Dr. Boisjoly actively consults with corporations and government agencies. His current and past clients
include General Electric Company (at its Crotonville Management Development Institute and at
international locations), Boeing, Microsoft, Exelon, KLA-Tencor, Praxair, Unilever, DHL, Deutsche Post
World Net, Copa Airlines, China Eastern Airlines, China Xibei Airlines, Brink's, Lockheed Martin (Martin
Marietta), Union Carbide, Rayonier, The Hartford, NYNEX (Verizon), Maytag, GTE (Verizon) AT&T, Garuda
Page 13/21
Indonesia Airlines, Taunton Press, C&P Telephone (Verizon), AICPA, the U.S. Department of Energy, NASA,
and the Massachusetts Photovoltaic Center. He has taught courses in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
China, Czech Republic, England, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico,
Netherlands, Panama, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Russia, Singapore, Spain, and Turkey for his multinational
corporate clients.

Dr. Boisjoly is listed in Who’s Who in the World, Who's Who Worldwide and Who's Who in Finance and he is
a member of two honor societies: Beta Gamma Sigma and Tau Epsilon Sigma. He received the Student
Award for Outstanding Teaching, Certi cate of Recognition for exceptional performance in the classroom
at the University of Maryland. In addition, his doctoral research was selected by Omicron Delta Epsilon for
presentation in its Invited Student Paper Session at the 1976 American Economics Association Meetings.
He is a licensed auctioneer in the State of Massachusetts (#2697).

References
1. Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M.1996. Assessing the Work Environment for
Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5: 1154-1184.
2. Amit, R, Glosten, L., and Mueller, E 1993. Challenges to Theory Development in Entrepreneurship
Research, Journal of Management Studies, 30: 815-834.
3. Amit, R., Mueller, E., and Cockburn, I. 1995. Opportunity Costs and Entrepreneurial Activity. Journal of
Business Venturing, 10: 95-106.
4. Arion, D. & Wagner, M. 2008. Leveraging Late-Sage Industrial Intellectual Property for Economic
Development and Entrepreneurship. Center for Advanced Technology and Innovation.
5. Arai, H. 2000. Intellectual Property Policies for the Twenty-First Century: The Japanese Experience in
Wealth Creation. WIPO Publication 834.
. Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. 2004. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Organization Identity, Hatch
M.J. & Schultz, M. Chapter 8. Oxford University Press, 134-160.
7. Bagley, C., Tvarno, C.2015. Promoting “Academic Entrepreneurship” in Europe and the United States:
Creating an Intellectual Property Regime to Facilitate the E cient Transfer of Knowledge from the
Lab to the Patient. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. 26:1-78.
. Barr M.,Baker, T.,Markham,S., Kingon,A. 2007. Bridging the Valley of Death: Lessons Learned from 14
Years of Commercialization of Technology Education Developments in Technology Management,
8:370-385.
9. Barrak M. 2014. Opportunity Recognition – How Different Entrepreneurs Differ in Discovering
Opportunities
10. Baumol, W.J. 1989. Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory. American Economic Review Papers and
Proceedings, 64-71.
11. Baumol, W.J. 1993. Formal Entrepreneurship Theory in Economics: Existence and Bounds. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8:197-210.
Page 14/21
12. Begley, T. and Boyd, D. 1987. Psychological Characteristics Associated with Performance in
Entrepreneurial Firms and Smaller Business. Journal of Business Venturing, 2: 79-93.
13. Bhave, M. 1994. A Process Model of Entrepreneurial Venture Creation. Journal of Business Venturing,
9: 223-242.
14. Carey, B. Accidental Invention Points to End of Light Bulbs. LiveScience, October 21, 2005.
15. Casson, M. 1982 The Entrepreneur. Totawa, NJ. Barnes and Noble Books.
1 . Cohen, W. and Levin, R. 1989. Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure. In R.
Schmalensee and R. Willig (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial Organization. Vol. II 1060-1107, New York:
Elsevier.
17. Davidson, P. 2015.Entrepreneurial Opportunities and the Entrepreneurship Nexus: A Re-
Conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing.30:674-695.
1 . Drucker, P. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
19. Dunne, T., Roberts, M., and Samuelson, L. 1988. Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in U.S. Manufacturing
Industries. Rand Journal of Economics. 19:495-515.
20. Evans, D. and Leighton, L. 1989 Some Empirical Aspects of Entrepreneurship. American Economic
Review. 79:519-535.
21. Felin, T. & Hesterly, W. 2007. The Knowledge-Based View, Nested Heterogeneity, and New Value
Creation: Philosophical Considerations on the Locus of Knowledge. Academy of Management
Review, 32: 195-218.
22. Gartner, W. 1985. A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation.
Academy of Management Review. 10:696-706.
23. Gartner, W. 1988. Who is the Entrepreneur? is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small
Business. 12: 11-32.
24. Hayek, F. 1945. The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review. 35:519-530.
25. Hills, G. 1995. Opportunity Recognition by Successful Entrepreneurs: A Pilot Study. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research 1995 Edition.
2 . Hills, G., Hansen, D., Hultman, C. 2004. Opportunity Recognition Processes: A Value Creation Context.
Value Creation in Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fueglistaller, U., Volery, T., Weber., W.
(Hrsg./Eds.):September 2004.
27. Hills, G., Hultman, C., Miles, M. 2008. The Evolution and Development of Entrepreneurial Marketing.
Journal of Small Business Management. 46,1: 99-112.
2 . Hills, G., Singh, R., Lumpkin, G., Baltrusaityte. 2004. Opportunity Recognition: Examining How Search
Formality and Search Processes Relate to the Reasons for Pursuing Entrepreneurship and Impact
Firm Founding. First Annual Clemson/Kauffman Symposium on the PSED. Clemson, SC. 2004. 13
pp.
29. Holcombe, R.2003.The Origins of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. The Review of Austrian Economics.
16:1,25-43.

Page 15/21
30. Horn, J. 2007. Working Our Magic. 3M.
31. Kaish, S. and Gilad, B.1991. Characteristics of Opportunities Search of Entrepreneurs versus
Executives: Sources, Interests and General Alertness. Journal of Business Venturing. 6:45-61.
32. Kang, S., Morris, S., & Snell, S. 2007. Relational Archetypes, Organizational Learning, and Value
Creation: Extending the Human Resource Architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32: 236-
256.
33. Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Kirzner, I. 1997. Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian
Approach. Journal of Economic Literature. 35: 60-85.
35. Kneller, R.2013.Commercializing Promising but Dormant Japanese Industry-University Joint
Discoveries via Independent, Venture Capital Funded Spin-offs. ,Ful lling the Promise of Technology
Transfer, 23-33.
3 . Krueger, N., Brazeal D., 1994. Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice. Spring 1994, 91-104.
37. Lee, S., Peng, M. & Barney, J. 2007. Bankruptcy law and Entrepreneurship Development: A Real
Options Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 257-272.
3 . Lepak, D., Smith, K. & Taylor, M. 2007. Value Creation and Value Capture: A Multilevel Perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 32: 180-194.
39. Lindman, M. 2007. Remarks on the Quality of the Construction of Business Concepts. European
Business Review. 19: 196-210.
40. Lindsay, N. 2005. Toward a Cultural Model of Indigenous Entrepreneurial Attitude. Academy of
Marketing Science Review. 2005, 1-9.
41. Low, M. and MacMillan, I. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges. Journal of
Management. 14: 139-161.
42. McGrath, R. 1999. Falling Forward: Real Options and Entrepreneurial Failure. The Academy of
Management Review. 24,1: 13-30.
43. Niehoff, B. & Bloodgood, J., 2001. Technology Patent Donations: Decisions That Impact Small
Business Creation. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship. March 2001.
44. Palich, L. and Bagby, R. 1995. Using Cognitive Theory to Explain Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking:
Challenging Conventional Wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing. 10:425-438
45. Pearson, C. 1960. The Indomitable Tin Goose: The True Story of Preston Tucker and His Car. Abelard-
Schuman
4 . Porter, M. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York:
Free Press.
47. Post, J., Preston , L., & Sachs, S., 2002. Rede ning the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and
Organizational Wealth. New York: Free Press.

Page 16/21
4 . Priem, R. 2007. A Consumer Perspective on Value Creation. 2007. Academy of Management Review,
32: 219-235.
49. Reamer, A., Icerman, L.& Youtie, J. 2003. Technology Transfer and Commercialization: Their Role in
Economic Development. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce &
Georgia Institute of Technology.
50. Rehmke, G. 1988. Preston Tucker: A Generation Too Late. Economic Thinking. The Reason
Foundation. October.
51. Reynolds, P. and White, S. 1997. The Entrepreneurial Process. Greenwich, Ct. Greenwood Press.
52. Roberts E. 1991. Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond. New York:
Oxford University Press.
53. Roberts, R. 1989. Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries. John Wiley & Sons.
54. Romanowski, P. 2006. How Products Are Made. Gale Research Inc. Volume 7, 2006.
55. Rosenberg, N. 1994. Uncertainty and Technological Change. Conference on Growth and
Development: The Economics of the 21st Century. Stanford, CA. Stanford University, Center for
Economic Policy Research.
5 . Sampson, R. 2004. Technology Donations in the National Interest. Discussion Paper. Kansas State
University & the Mid-America Commercialization Corporation. January 2004.
57. Schmookler, J. 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
5 . Schumpeter, J. 1934. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
59. Schwartz,R. and Teach, R. 2000. A Model of Opportunity Recognition and Exploration: Am Empirical
Study f Incubator Firms. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol 2, Issue 2, 2000.
0. Shane, S. 2000. Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organization
Science. 11, 4: 448-467.
1. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.
Academy of Management Review. 25: 217.228.
2. Simon, H. and March, J., 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
3. Singh, R., Knox, E., Crump, M. 2008. Opportunity Recognition Differences Between Blacks and White
Nascent Entrepreneurs: A Test of Bhave’s Model. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 13, 1:
59-75.
4. Sirmon, D., Hitt, M. & Ireland, R. 2007. Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create
Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Academy of Management Review, 32: 273-292.
5. Tukel, O.,Kremic, T.,Rom,W. Miller, R.2011. Project Management Journal. 42:59-72.
. Uttal, B. 1983. The Lab That Ran Away From Xerox. Fortune, 11: 97-102.
7. Utterback, J.1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Cambridge, MA. Harvard Business School
Press.

Page 17/21
 . Von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science. 32:791-
805
9. Weier, M.H. 2007. Does Software Consolidation Sti e Innovation? Information Week, January27,
2007.
70. West, J. 2005. Intellectual Property and Competition Policy in the Biotechnology Industry. OECD
Observer, June 2005.
71. Wilkins, G. 2002. Technology Transfer for Renewable Energy. Earthscan, June 2002.
72. Yoneyama, S., Oh,I., and Kim, H.R. 2004. Knowledge Integration Capabilities of Japanese Companies:
Reconstructing Intra-Firm Networks for Technology Commercialisation. International Journal of
Information Technology and Management, 3,1: 59-71.
73. Young, J. (1997) Gary Kildall: The DOS That Wasn’t. 1997. Forbes, July 7, 1997.

Figures

Figure 1

Value Capture also may take many forms (technology, products, or services sold and/or licensed, or occur
in numerous markets ( nancial, wholesale, retail, human resource, natural resource, etc.), or alter value
creation processes themselves, etc. However, there is an additional step in the process that involves
“Recognition of Value.”

Figure 2

Once an entrepreneur decides to move forward, the Opportunity Recognition would lead to the
development of a Business Plan, determination of a Production process, and then result in the providing a
Product or Service to the marketplace. When we look at Bhave’s model (1994)

Page 18/21
Figure 3

The individual may develop the opportunity on his/her own, start their own business, form an alliance
with friends or co-workers, or take the idea to an entrepreneur. Therefore, the individual is considering
becoming an entrepreneur. Kreuger and Brazeal (1994) developed a model of entrepreneurial potential as
shown in Figure 3.

Page 19/21
Figure 4

If the opportunity is recognized, what happens next? We can appeal to the research by Amabile, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby & Herron (1996) on the creativity environment within the organization. As depicted in
Figure 4

Page 20/21
Figure 5

Consequently, we can make the connection between the Entrepreneurship Models, the Creativity Models
and the Value Creation Process as shown in Figure 5.

Page 21/21